• Fumihiro Ohchi, Nobuyasu Komasawa, Ryosuke Mihara, Kazuo Hattori, and Toshiaki Minami.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Osaka Medical College, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan.
• J Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 1; 53 (5): 635-641.

BackgroundNo study has ever compared the efficacy of various types of supraglottic devices (SGDs) for securing the airway under cricoid pressure.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of six SGDs, LMA-ProSeal (ProSeal), LMA-Classic (Classic), Laryngeal Tube (LT), LMA-Supreme (Supreme), air-Q (air-Q), and i-gel (i-gel), in airway management under cricoid pressure using a manikin.MethodsFifteen novice doctors and 16 experienced doctors used the six SGDs under cricoid or sham pressure on an adult manikin. Insertion time, successful ventilation rate, and subjective insertion difficulty on a visual analogue scale (VAS) were measured.ResultsBoth novice and experienced doctors had a significantly lower ventilation success rate under cricoid pressure than under sham pressure when using the ProSeal, Classic, and LT, but not when using the other three SGDs. Novice doctors required a significantly longer insertion time under cricoid pressure than under sham pressure with all SGDs. Experienced doctors required a significantly longer insertion time under cricoid pressure than with sham pressure when using the ProSeal, Classic, and LT, but not when using the other three SGDs. Subjective insertion difficulty on VAS was significantly higher under cricoid pressure than under sham pressure with all six SGDs.ConclusionVentilation success rate under cricoid pressure was significantly lower than under sham pressure when using the ProSeal, Classic, and LT, but not when using the other three SGDs in both novice and experienced doctors.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

34 keywords...

hide…